COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA September 15, :00 p.m. Council Chamber. Chair: Acting Mayor

Transcription

1 City of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA September 15, :00 p.m. Council Chamber Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor 1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 Linda Meyer, A.A.B.A.P.B.D. HandiDart Concerns 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes. Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: RZ, Avenue and 12507, 12469, and Street Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that first reading for properties located at Avenue; 12507, 12469, and Street be denied.

2 Committee of the Whole Agenda September 15, 2014 Page 2 of RZ, Alouette Road Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that first reading for the property located at Alouette Road be denied DVP, McEachern Street (east side lots only) Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP to increase maximum building height for eight uphill lots on the east side of McEachern Street Award of Contract ITT-EN14-54: Larch Avenue Road Extension Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that Contract ITT- EN14-54, Larch Avenue Road Extension be awarded to Frazer Excavation Ltd., that a 5% contingency be approved, that the Financial Plan be amended to advance funds from LTC 7840, and further that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) Council Expenses Staff report dated September 15, 2014 providing Council expenses for 2014 updated to the end of August COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES CORRESPONDENCE OTHER ISSUES 1181

3 Committee of the Whole Agenda September 15, 2014 Page 3 of 3 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. COMMUNITY FORUM COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to ask questions of Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing bylaws that have not yet reached conclusion. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to the individual members of Council. The total time for this Forum is limited to 15 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a response will be given. Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or via and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future of this community. For more information on these opportunities contact: Clerk s Department at or clerks@mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca Checked by: Date:

4 1.1

5

6

7 City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 12, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Avenue 12507, 12469, 12555, and Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to allow for a 166 unit strata development consisting of modular homes. The proposed plot size averages 237 m 2 (2500 ft 2 ) per lot. The subject properties are designated Estate Suburban Residential, and are located outside of the District s Urban Area Boundary, but are within the Region s Urban Containment Boundary and the Fraser Sewerage Area. The prescribed zones in this designation are RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RG-2 (Suburban Residential Strata), as outlined in Appendix C of the Official Community Plan (OCP). The housing form associated with this designation is low density single detached or strata housing units with minimum lot areas of 0.4 ha (1 acre), and an average density of 2.5 units per net hectare. The housing form proposed by this application is modular single storey detached residential units that could be wheelchair accessible. This application would contribute to the diversity of Maple Ridge housing stock and therefore the housing form it proposes is supportable. However, this application proposes residential densities that are not appropriate outside of the Urban Area Boundary. The application as proposed is for 166 units with a density in the range of 41.5 units per net hectare, which is similar to the R3 small lot densities found in the Albion growth area (i.e. Country Lane). The subject site is outside of the Urban Area Boundary, and is considered unavailable for urban development. On this basis it is recommended that this application be denied. This report will review this application in light of previous Council decisions about extending the Urban Area Boundary, and the 2004 Council decision to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban development as part of the review of the OCP. A number of alternatives are outlined for Council consideration including developing the subject properties in compliance with the OCP at densities of 2.5 units per net hectare, or working with staff to increase the density at a level not exceeding 12 units per net hectare based on a density bonus framework to accomplish a range of housing tenure diversity, affordability, and special needs housing. A third alternative is to direct staff to undertake a policy review of the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation, with a comprehensive servicing capacity and traffic assessment in relation to growth management and the OCP policy framework. It should be noted that this third option is likely not achievable until

8 RECOMMENDATIONS: That first reading for properties located at Avenue; 12507, 12469, 12555, and Street be denied. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owners: Legal Descriptions: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc. Jacqueline Vanier Daniel and Christine Olson Karen Campbell BC Ltd. Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP3017 Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP10558 Lot: 3, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP10558 Lot: A, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP9912 Lot: A, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP9912 OCP: Existing: Proposed: Estate Suburban Residential Urban Residential, Conservation Zoning: Existing: Proposed: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Yet to be determined Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural and Estate Suburban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural and Suburban Residential Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential (Rural) Single Family Residential (Intensive Urban Strata) - 2 -

9 Site Area: 13.8 ha (34 acres) Access: 240 Street (both south and north, via Fern Crescent), 239 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: The five subject properties are located to the south of the Silver Valley Horse Hamlet in the vicinity of 240 th Street and 124 th Avenue. The South Alouette River bisects two of the five properties, with the majority of the lands located south of the river. Portions of the properties are located above an aquifer and are also located in the localized floodplain of the South Alouette River. A number of watercourses are located on or adjacent to the subject properties in addition to the South Alouette River including two branches of Latimer Creek, Latimer Channel and two indefinite watercourses. Four of the five subject properties are currently accessed via 240 Street, constructed to a gravel road standard on the south side of the river. The fifth property is currently accessed via 124 th Avenue. c) Project Description: The development proposal is for a total of five properties totalling approximately 13.8 ha (34 acres) of land in the northwest corner of 124 th Avenue and 240 th Street. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties to enable a strata development of 166 residential strata lots approximately 237 m 2 (2500 ft 2 ) in size, each of which would contain a modular rancher home that is constructed elsewhere and placed on the property. Based on preliminary discussions with the applicant, the modular home product is proposed to resemble a regular single storey home, the only differentiation being the methods and location of construction. The development spans a significant distance, and proposes three main accesses. One access is from 240 Street on the south side of the South Alouette River, and a second access is from 239 Street. These two entrances will service the 134 lots proposed on the south side of the river. The third access is located on the existing unopened 240 Street road allowance located on the north side of the river via Fern Crescent. This entrance will provide access to 32 lots proposed on the north side of the river. Other elements of the proposal include park dedication for conservation purposes of Latimer Creek, Latimer Channel, and South Alouette River; a nature interpretive centre, as well as several parking and common areas. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. For the proposed development to proceed, an OCP amendment would be required to amend the Urban Area Boundary in order to re-designate the site to Urban Residential to allow the density as proposed by the applicant. Portions of the site will also need to be designated Conservation. Multiple sections of the Official Community Plan have relevance to this application. They are as follows: Chapter 3, Neighbourhoods and Housing, which discusses compatible development, expansion into the Urban Reserve, and density bonusing for specific housing options; Chapter 5, Natural Features, which discusses floodplain development; Chapter 6, Employment, which discusses development adjacent to agricultural land; - 3 -

10 Chapter 8, Development Permit Area Guidelines, which creates special requirements for certain forms of development and for the protection of natural features and ecologically significant land; and Appendix C, which aligns specific zones with land use designations. Land Use Designation and Neighbourhood Context: The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. Section 3.13 of the Official Community Plan states the following regarding the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation: The Estate Suburban Residential designation permits single detached or duplex housing in areas outside the Urban Area Boundary. The zones prescribed by this designation are RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RG-2 (Suburban Residential Strata). The permitted densities average 0.4 hectares (1 acre) per dwelling unit. The Estate Suburban Residential designation indicates that the subject properties are outside of the District s Urban Area Boundary, but could be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District as they are within the Fraser Sewer Area. Aspects of this proposal are supportable as it would meet a specific housing need. However, the proposed 166 units would amount to over 40 units per net hectare, which represents a significant increase in density. The supportable density land use designation of the Estate Suburban Residential is 2.5 units per net hectare, or 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots, which would amount to a total of 10 units on the subject site. The following OCP policy guides development in the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation: Policy 3-14 Urban level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate Suburban Residential. Density Bonusing: The Official Community Plan contains provisions that could be used to support an increased number of units than that prescribed by the zone and land use designation. Through these provisions, an applicant would receive greater development potential (generally more residential units) in exchange for providing a specific community benefit. These benefits could include: 1. Ecological, which could pertain to the protection of features such as significant stands of trees or parkland above what would normally be required 2. Affordable, rental, and special needs housing provisions contained within the development proposal. 3. Community Amenity, which would allow a financial contribution for a specific community amenity. Currently, this provision is only allowed in the Albion area. A density bonus approach for tree protection purposes is currently under consideration by Council for another application within this neighbourhood, at and Dogwood Avenue ( RZ). The proposed densities of this nearby application are equivalent to the RS1-c Zone, or 1200 m 2 (13,000 ft 2 ) lots

11 The potential of this application to meet specific housing needs could be considered in a density bonus formula. Policy 3-30 of the Official Community Plan would support such an initiative, as follows: Maple Ridge will consider density bonus as a means of encouraging the provision of affordable, rental and special needs housing, and amenities. It is noted that the applicant has emphasized that this higher density housing form would be an accessible and affordable form of home ownership. The estimated market value per unit would be under $300, and these units have potential to be wheelchair accessible 1. This consideration would require further investigation and a commitment to specific measures such as: accessible units, rental secured in perpetuity through a Section 905 Housing Agreement; and/or non market houing units; and one level rancher styled units. All these suggestions are supported through current OCP policies and are reaffirmed in the draft Housing Action Plan. If a density bonus was applied to this proposal that was consistent with the Dogwood Avenue application, with similar densities, the total number of units would be approximately 48 over this 4 hectare development site. Further discussion about density bonusing is included further in this report. Based on the land use context of the Horse Hamlet, Official Community Plan policies do not support the development of lands north of the Alouette River as part of this development proposal. The portions of the subject properties on the north side of the river are geographically separated from the land on the south side of the river, and are best considered in relationship to the large RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) lots already established along the south side of Fern Crescent. In consideration of this context, the development of this area should remain in accordance with the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation. It should also be noted that the dedication of this area could be used as a density bonus provision that would allow for increased density in the larger developable southern portion of the site. This application proposes urban levels of density, with a proposed lot size of 237 m 2, in an area of Maple Ridge that has not been designated for urban development, and whose neighbourhood context is a mix of large lot suburban and agricultural parcels. Properties along 239 Street and in the Academy Park neighbourhood have been developed in accordance with the Estate Suburban Residential designation, characterized by 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots and high improvement values, indicating that these adjacent properties are not likely for infill and re-development in the foreseeable future. As development of these lands has occurred in accordance with the stated direction of the community, subsequent developments should be sensitive to this context Additionally, large agricultural lots are located south and west of the subject properties; and an established neighbourhood with a variety of historic lot size is located north of the development site adjacent to the Silver Valley Horse Hamlet. This development cannot proceed as proposed without an OCP amendment to re-designate the subject properties to Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include it within the District s Urban Area Boundary. As the development proposal cannot be supported based on Policies 3-2 and 3-14, the Planning Department does not support an Official Community Plan amendment to include the subject properties within the District s Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential. 1 It should be noted at this time that the proposed development and its affordability are entirely market driven

12 Urban Area Boundary Adjustment There are several key OCP policies that do not align with expanding the Urban Area Boundary to include the subject properties and develop them to an urban density as proposed by the applicant. These policies are outlined and discussed below, and in subsequent sections of this report. Policy 3-22 Maple Ridge will avoid non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary. The subject properties are bounded by Agricultural and Estate Suburban Residential designated land. Expansion of the Urban Area Boundary to include these properties is therefore not supportable. Additionally: Policy 2-6 Maple Ridge supports and maintains the Urban Area Boundary recognizing the role that it has on limiting urban expansion, preserving community character, reducing land speculation within the Agricultural Land Reserve and protecting the agricultural land base, and in providing for the efficient delivery of services. Adjustments to the Urban Area Boundary: a) will only be supported if the District has an adopted Agricultural Plan; b) will be considered in cooperation with the Agricultural Land Commission and Metro Vancouver; and c) will only be conducted during a Comprehensive Official Community Plan review, or Council directed Comprehensive Urban Area Boundary review, and applications considered outside of either review are considered premature. Policy 2-6 outlines the importance of maintaining the Urban Area Boundary as a way to preserve community character and protect agricultural lands. The policy also outlines the circumstances required in considering an adjustment to the Urban Area Boundary. The Urban Area Boundary was considered by Council in as a component of the Regional Growth Strategy review, and no changes were directed at that time. Thornhill Urban Reserve: In addition to the above noted Urban Area Boundary policies of the OCP, an Urban Area Boundary adjustment and OCP amendment to Urban Residential is also not supportable due to the decision to allocate the Thornhill area as a future Urban Reserve growth area. Prior to the adoption of the Official Community Plan in 2006, there was significant dialogue about retaining the Thornhill area as an Urban Reserve. In 2004, consultant services were retained to evaluate where to accommodate population growth in the community. Growth options included expanding northward (on lands that included the subject properties) or retaining Thornhill for future growth. After consideration of the consultant s report and public input, Council directed that Thornhill be retained for future growth in the Official Community Plan. On December 13, 2004, Council passed the following resolution: That Option 2 (Status Quo Thornhill) be indicated as Council s preferred option during the public consultation phase of the review of the Official Community Plan

13 The 2006 Official Community Plan was adopted with the retention of Thornhill as the Urban Reserve, defined as a land use designation which identifies lands identified by the District for long term future urban level services and housing, subject to compliance with Section of the OCP. In addition, specific triggers were established indicating when development could proceed. Policy 3-24 states the following: Policy 3-24 Maple Ridge will retain the Thornhill area as a long term Urban Reserve area. Urban development will not be supported in the Thornhill Urban Reserve Area until the population threshold exceeds 100,000 people for the District and the residential capacity within the existing urban area is approaching build-out. As there are significant implications for future growth patterns in Thornhill, the urban density proposed for the subject properties is not supportable. Agricultural Interface: The subject properties are adjacent to land located in the Agricultural Land Reserve to the west and south of the site. The following OCP policies apply to development adjacent to agricultural land: Policy 6-12 Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by: b) requiring agricultural impact assessments (AIAs) and Groundwater Impact Assessment of non-farm development and infrastructure projects and identifying measures to off-set impacts on agricultural capability; c) preserving larger farm units and areas by using appropriate buffers such as roads, topographic features, watercourses, ditching, fencing, or gradually reduced residential densities on properties adjacent to agricultural land; As a requirement of development on the subject properties, an Agricultural Impact Assessment as outlined in item b) above would be required. An agricultural buffer would also be used to reduce the impact on the existing agricultural properties. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties located at Avenue, 12507, 12469, and Street from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to enable a strata development of 166 lots, each of which would contain a modular single storey home that is constructed elsewhere and placed on the property. Appropriate Zoning Bylaw amendments will need to be created, and are dependent upon direction by Council. Development Permit: The proposed development would be situated on portions of the site that are entirely within the floodplain of the south Alouette River. A Natural Features Development Permit would be required, and the services of a qualified professional would be required to determine site specific flood construction levels. Bringing in sufficient fill to raise this high density development sufficiently could have potential impacts on adjacent environmentally sensitive lands and could alter river flows on high flow periods. On this basis, it should be noted that the proposed single storey accessible housing form could prove challenging at this location

14 e) Intergovernmental Implications: The subject properties are designated General Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy and are located within the Urban Containment Boundary. The General Urban designation indicates that the subject properties can be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, as they are within the Fraser Sewer Area. Consequently, this regional designation gives Council some flexibility to direct land uses on Estate Suburban Residential designated lands, as no regional approvals are required in order for this application to proceed as proposed. Although the subject properties are not considered available for urban levels of development under OCP policies, Council may consider using density bonusing to achieve specific housing benefits as outlined in Policy f) Interdepartmental Comments: Engineering Department: To service the proposed development the level of engineering services currently provided will require upgrading including significant transportation, water, sanitary and drainage work. To address the increased demand placed upon the municipal systems the developer would initially be required to evaluate the water network and downstream sanitary sewer for any capacity upgrades. In addition the property is serviced by a deadend watermain and a secondary water connection (looped system) will need to be provided, this may require directional drilling under the Alouette River and a pressure reducing station. The sanitary system would also need to be extended from Abernethy Way including the construction of a pump station and a 750m forcemain. Access is currently provided by a gravel road and would require upgrading to a rural standard from the intersection of 141 Ave. The upgrades identified form a preliminary review of the development, additional unknown factors may be identified when the engineering referral is circulated. Consideration to a future 240 Street bridge crossing and associated fill and/or structural footprint may need to be assessed with this application. Further Engineering review would be required upon receipt of Council direction as it relates to the potential development of this site and lands in this vicinity. g) Alternatives: The development concept is supportable in its form and character, and because it provides for an alternative housing form, a range of unit sizes, and responds to a known community need. However, the proposal cannot be supported under the Official Community Plan based on the urban level density being proposed. Three alternatives to the recommendation are outlined below for Council s consideration. Alternative 1: Support Application as Proposed The first alternative is to support the application as proposed for 166 units. If Alternative 1 is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to bring forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading, and to identify the additional information the applicant is required to provide in accordance with Development Procedures Bylaw No It is important to recognize that there significant implications to this approach, which is not recommended

15 Alternative 2: Short Term Deferral: Density Bonus Framework Using Densities Similar to RS-1c Zone The second alternative is to develop the subject properties to a higher density than currently supported in the OCP using a density bonus framework for affordable, rental, or special needs housing, and /or for ecological diversity and the retention of forested lands. This approach is similar to the nearby Dogwood Avenue application that proposes increased residential densities in exchange for tree protection. Resulting densities would be consistent with the RS-1c Zone. If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to work with the applicant to bring forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading, and to identify the additional information the applicant is required to provide in accordance with Development Procedures Bylaw No Alternative 3: Long Term Deferral: Estate Suburban Residential Designation Review Should Council wish to explore supporting urban densities above the RS-1c Zone, or other potential alternatives for developing the subject properties not outlined in this report, a third alternative is to conduct a policy review of the Estate Suburban Residential designation. This alternative would involve Council directing staff to prepare a policy review of the entire Estate Suburban Residential land use designation, affecting approximately 207 hectares (512 acres) of Estate Suburban Residential designated land. A similar review was recently completed for the Albion Area Plan. It is noted at this time that the Planning Department does not have the capacity to undertake this review until the Albion Flats and Hammond Area Plans are completed. If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to conduct this study, noting the subject application will be deferred until the policy review is completed. CONCLUSION: The housing form proposed by this application is single storey ground oriented detached residential units that could be wheelchair accessible, which would contribute to the diversity of Maple Ridge housing stock. The housing form it proposes is supportable and aligns with the goals of the Housing Action Plan. However, this application proposes urban densities, with 166 units and an average density of 41.5 units per net hectare, compared to the 10 units currently permitted under the Estate Suburban designation. This report has reviewed the subject application in light of applicable OCP policies that speak to Urban Area Boundary adjustments, neighbourhood compatibility, and the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation. Previous Council decisions about extending the Urban Area Boundary, and the 2004 Council decision to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban development as part of the review of the OCP have also been summarized. In summary, it is recommended that the rezoning application as proposed by the applicant be denied, as the proposal does not comply with the following OCP Policies: Policy 3-14, which does not permit urban densities in the Estate Suburban Residential designation; Policy 2-6, which stipulates the circumstances of when an Urban Area Boundary can be considered; Policy 3-22, which does not allow non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary; Policy 3-24, which allocates Thornhill as an Urban Reserve for future urban growth

16 The development proposal is not in compliance with the OCP, and would require an amendment to designate the subject properties Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include the subject properties within the Urban Area Boundary. As outlined in this report, these required amendments do not align with the OCP, and, therefore, it is recommended that this application be denied. Original signed by Diana Hall Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA, MCIP Planner Original signed by Christine Carter Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Original signed by Frank Quinn Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A Subject Map Appendix B Proposed Site Plan

17 APPENDIX A SUBJECT PROPERTIES Scale: 1:3,500 City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley ^ FRASER R. District of Mission AVENUE & 12469, 12507, & STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Feb 19, 2014 FILE: RZ BY: PC

18 APPENDIX B

19 City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 15, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Alouette Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to allow for 41 lots. The proposed development includes 24 RS-1c size lots with a minimum area of 1200m² (0.30 acre); and 17 RS-1 size lots with a minimum area of 668m² (0.17 acres), attached as Appendix B. The subject property is designated Estate Suburban Residential, and is located outside of the District s Urban Area Boundary, but is within the Region s Urban Containment Boundary and the Fraser Sewerage Area. The prescribed zones in this designation are RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RG-2 (Suburban Residential Strata), as outlined in Appendix C of the Official Community Plan. The housing form associated with this designation is low density single detached with a minimum lot area of 0.4 ha (1 acre) and or strata housing units an maximum density of 2.5 units per net hectare. This report will review this application in light of previous Council decisions about extending the Urban Area Boundary, and the Council decision to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban development as part of the Official Community Plan. Official Community Plan policies do not support amendments to include the subject property within the District s Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential. Therefore, it is recommended that this application be denied. RECOMMENDATIONS: That first reading for the property located at Alouette Road be denied. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc. Debbie L. Raymond That portion of NW ¼ Section 22, Township 12, lying east of the east bank of the South Alouette River and east of Parcel C (Ex Plan 5712) and also lying north of SRWPlan 3041, NWD 1102

20 OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Estate Suburban Residential Urban Residential, Conservation RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-1c (One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential), and RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: 128 Avenue (unmaintained gravel lane), and Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential South: Use: Vacant municipal land, and Rural and Suburban Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential East: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), under application ( RZ) for 7 Suburban RS-2 zoned lots) Designation: Suburban Residential West: Use: Alouette River, and common property for Single Family Strata Residential Zone: RG-2 (Suburban Residential Strata) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing Requirement: Rural Residential Urban density Single Family Residential ha (20.6 acres), developable portion is estimated to be 4 ha (10 acres) 128 Avenue Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: The development site is located southeast of the Alouette River, south of the 128 Avenue road rightof-way to the west of Alouette Road. The land slopes down from the steep embankment on the municipal lands south of the site, sloping towards the Alouette River on the north and west with a steep embankment down to the river. Current development of the site includes a house, barn, several out buildings and horse paddocks. Watercourses, swales, a pond, and steep slopes have been identified on the site, as well as forested areas some of which are significant sized trees. An equestrian trail and small watercourse are located within the 128 Avenue road right-of-way, and recent construction activity for the sanitary sewer main extension on 128 Avenue included improvements to them. The property is located outside of the District s Urban Area Boundary (UAB), but is within the Regional Urban Containment Boundary and the Fraser Sewerage Area

21 c) Project Description: The applicant proposes to rezone the 8.4 ha (20.6 acre) property to allow a subdivision of 41 single family urban lots. The proposed development includes 24 RS-1c size lots with a minimum area of 1200m² (0.30 acre); and 17 RS-1 size lots with a minimum area of 668m² (0.17 acres). The net developable portion of the site is estimated at 4 hectares (10 acres). An environmental assessment of the site has not been completed by a Qualified Environmental Professional to establish the developable area. An initial environmental context map was prepared by the Environmental Section (attached as Appendix C) to identify a preliminary approximation of the developable area. Additional information is required to accurately determine density. The unknown quantity of roads needed to access the future lot complicates this issue further. However, based on density currently permitted on the OCP (i.e: 2.5 units per net hectare for RS-2 development), the estimated potential lot yield of the site would be 9 to 10 lots. The applicant s proposal for 41 lots on a 4 ha (10 acres) site is equivalent to a density of 10 units per net hectare or 24.7 units per acre. This unit count is significant (4 times higher) than the permitted density in the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation. If approved, this proposal would have important implications to the entire Estate Suburban Residential designation and the residential policy structure of the OCP. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to Second Reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. d) Planning Analysis: i. Official Community Plan: The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. For the proposed development an OCP amendment would be required to re-designate the site to Urban Residential to allow the density as proposed by the applicant and Conservation for protection of the watercourse and riparian areas. Multiple sections of the Official Community Plan have relevance to this application. These are as follows: Chapter 3, Neighbourhoods and Housing, which discusses compatible development, and expansion into the Urban Reserve; Chapter 5, Natural Features, which discusses protection of watercourses, riparian areas, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and forest areas; Chapter 8, Development Permit Area Guidelines, which creates special requirements for certain forms of development and for the protection of natural features and ecologically significant land; and Appendix C, which aligns specific zones with land use designations. The planning implications of this development proposal in the context of the above mentioned sections are significant and are outlined below

22 Land Use Designation: The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. Section 3.13 of the Official Community Plan states the following regarding the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation: The Estate Suburban Residential designation permits single detached or duplex housing in areas outside the Urban Area Boundary. The prescribed zones in this designation are RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RG-2 (Suburban Residential Strata), as outlined in Appendix C of the Official Community Plan. The permitted densities average 0.4 hectares (1 acre) per dwelling unit. The Estate Suburban Residential designation indicates that the subject property is outside of the District s Urban Area Boundary, but could be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District as it is within the Fraser Sewer Area. Policy 3-14 of the OCP policies below guide development in the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation: Urban level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate Suburban Residential. Policy 3-15 Maple Ridge will support single detached and two-family residential housing in Estate Suburban Residential areas. The Estate Suburban Residential land use designation is characterised generally by 0.4 hectare lots. This application proposes urban levels of density in an area of Maple Ridge that has not been designated for urban development, and whose neighbourhood context is a mix of large lot rural properties. This development cannot be supported as proposed without an OCP amendment to redesignate the subject properties to Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include it within the District s Urban Area Boundary. As outlined above, the development proposal does not comply with the OCP and cannot be supported based on Policies 3-14 and The policies of the Official Community Plan do not support an amendment to include the subject properties within the District s Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential. Density Bonusing: The Official Community Plan contains provisions that could be used to support an increased number of units than that prescribed by the zone and land use designation. Through these provisions, an applicant would receive greater development potential (generally more residential units) in exchange for providing a specific community benefit. These benefits could include: 1. Ecological, which could pertain to the protection of features such as significant stands of trees or parkland above what would normally be required 2. Affordable, rental, and special needs housing provisions contained within the development proposal. 3. Community Amenity, which would allow a financial contribution for a specific community amenity. Currently, this provision is only allowed in the Albion area. The subject application has not proposed any specific community benefit and at this time is not eligible for consideration of a density bonus. However, a density bonus approach for tree protection purposes is currently under consideration by Council for another application within this neighbourhood, at and Dogwood Avenue - 4 -

23 ( RZ). The proposed densities of this nearby application are equivalent to the RS1-c Zone, or 1200 m 2 (13,000 ft 2 ) lots. If a density bonus was applied to this proposal that was consistent with the Dogwood Avenue application, with similar densities, the total number of units would be approximately 48 over this 4 hectare (10 acre) development site. Further discussion about density bonusing is included further in this report. This development cannot proceed as proposed without an OCP amendment to re-designate the subject property to Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include it within the District s Urban Area Boundary. The development proposal is inconsistent with Policies 3-2 and 3-14, and therefore, required amendments to include the subject properties within the District s Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential are not supportable. Urban Area Boundary Adjustment There are several key OCP policies that do not align with expanding the Urban Area Boundary to include the subject property and develop it to an urban density as proposed by the applicant. These policies are outlined and discussed below, and in subsequent sections of this report. Policy 3-22 Maple Ridge will avoid non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary. The subject property is adjacent to lands that have been developed in accordance with the Estate Suburban Residential designation. Expansion of the Urban Area Boundary to include this property is therefore not supportable. Additionally, Policy 2-6 states the following: Maple Ridge supports and maintains the Urban Area Boundary recognizing the role that it has on limiting urban expansion, preserving community character, reducing land speculation within the Agricultural Land Reserve and protecting the agricultural land base, and in providing for the efficient delivery of services. Adjustments to the Urban Area Boundary: a) will only be supported if the District has an adopted Agricultural Plan; b) will be considered in cooperation with the Agricultural Land Commission and Metro Vancouver; and c) will only be conducted during a Comprehensive Official Community Plan review, or Council directed Comprehensive Urban Area Boundary review, and applications considered outside of either review are considered premature. Policy 2-6 outlines the importance of maintaining the Urban Area Boundary as a way to preserve community character and protect agricultural lands. The policy also outlines the circumstances required in considering an adjustment to the Urban Area Boundary. The Urban Area Boundary was considered by Council in as a component of the Regional Growth Strategy review, and no changes were directed at that time. Thornhill Urban Reserve: In addition to the above noted Urban Area Boundary policies of the OCP, an Urban Area Boundary adjustment and OCP amendment to Urban Residential is also not supportable due to the decision to allocate the Thornhill area as a future Urban Reserve growth area. Prior to the adoption of the Official Community Plan in 2006, there was significant dialogue about retaining the Thornhill area as an Urban Reserve. In 2004, consultant services were retained to evaluate where to accommodate population growth in the community. Growth options included expanding northward (on lands that included the subject properties) or retaining Thornhill for future growth. After consideration of the - 5 -

24 consultant s report and public input, Council directed that Thornhill be retained for future growth in the Official Community Plan. On December 13, 2004, Council passed the following resolution: That Option 2 (Status Quo Thornhill) be indicated as Council s preferred option during the public consultation phase of the review of the Official Community Plan. The 2006 Official Community Plan was adopted with the retention of Thornhill as the Urban Reserve, defined as a land use designation which identifies lands identified by the District for long term future urban level services and housing, subject to compliance with Section of the OCP. In addition, specific triggers were established indicating when development could proceed. Policy 3-24 states the following: Policy 3-24 Maple Ridge will retain the Thornhill area as a long term Urban Reserve area. Urban development will not be supported in the Thornhill Urban Reserve Area until the population threshold exceeds 100,000 people for the District and the residential capacity within the existing urban area is approaching build-out. As there are significant implications for future growth patterns in Thornhill, the urban density proposed for the subject property is not supportable. ii. Zoning Bylaw: The applicant proposes to rezone the property located at Alouette Road from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to allow a subdivision of 41 single family urban lots. The proposed development includes 24 RS-1c size lots with a minimum area of 1200m² (12,917 ft²); and 17 RS-1 size lots with a minimum area of 668m² (7190 ft², attached as Appendix B. e) Intergovernmental Implications: Metro Vancouver s Regional Growth Strategy establishes regional land use designations and sets an Urban Containment Boundary. The subject properties are designated General Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy and are located within the Urban Containment Boundary. The General Urban designation indicates that the subject properties can be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, as they are within the Fraser Sewer Area. Consequently, this regional designation gives Council some flexibility to direct land uses on Estate Suburban Residential designated lands, as no regional approvals are required. Although the subject properties are not considered available for urban levels of development under OCP policies, Council may consider using density bonusing to achieve specific community benefits as outlined in Policy However, the applicant has not proposed on the subject property a sufficient level of affordable, special needs or rental housing provisions, or conservation, park or tree preservation to justify density bonusing considerations for this property

25 f) Interdepartmental Implications: i. Engineering Department To service the proposed development, the level of engineering services currently provided will require upgrading, including significant transportation, water and drainage work. To address the increased demand placed upon the municipal systems the developer would initially be required to evaluate the water network and downstream sanitary sewer for any capacity upgrades. In addition, the property cannot be serviced by a dead-end watermain, therefore, a secondary water connection (looped system) will need to be provided. This may require directional drilling under the Alouette River and installation of a pressure reducing station. Access to the property is currently provided by an unmaintained gravel road accessed from Alouette Road and will require upgrading to an urban standard from the intersection of 128 Avenue and Alouette Road. The upgrades identified above form a preliminary review of the development, and additional unknown factors may be identified when a referral to the Engineering department is circulated. ii. Environmental Considerations The known watercourses on the property include the Alouette River and 2 tributaries. In addition, a recent visit to the development site noted additional watercourses that have not been identified on the District s Streamside Setback Assessment Map. Setbacks to steep slopes on or adjacent to the site are required. A geotechnical assessment will be required, including a plan showing the geotechnical setback lines from the slopes. The proposed subdivision layout does not appear to take the existing watercourse situation on the subject property into adequate consideration. There are a number of significant trees on the site, especially within the watercourse setback area, have been tagged by a surveyor or forester. A qualified professional will need to prepare an arborist report and tree survey with recommendations for tree retention where possible, possible tree replacement, and a hazard assessment. Approval of a Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit is required prior to any disturbance on the site, particularly the removal of any trees within 50 metres of any watercourse. An Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment will be required. Assessment of natural hazards, including floodplain and geotechnical, will also be required. g) Alternatives: The OCP policies do not support an OCP amendment to include the subject property within the District s Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential. Three alternatives to the staff report are outlined below for Council s consideration. Alternative 1: Support Application as Proposed The first alternative is to support the application as proposed for 41 units. If Alternative 1 is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to bring forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading, and to identify the additional information the applicant is required to provide in accordance with Development Procedures Bylaw No It is important to recognize that there significant implications to this approach, which is not recommended

26 Alternative 2: Short Term Deferral: Density Bonus Framework Using Densities Similar to RS-1c Zone The second alternative is to develop the subject property to a higher density than currently supported in the OCP using a density bonus framework for: affordable, rental, or special needs housing, or ecological diversity and the retention of forested lands. This approach is similar to the nearby Dogwood Avenue application that proposes increased residential densities in exchange for tree protection. Resulting densities would be consistent with the RS-1c Zone. If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to work with the applicant to bring forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading, and to identify the additional information the applicant is required to provide in accordance with Development Procedures Bylaw No Alternative 3: Long Term Deferral: Estate Suburban Residential Designation Review Should Council wish to explore supporting urban densities above the RS-1c Zone, or other potential alternatives for developing the subject property not outlined in this report, a third alternative is to conduct a policy review of the Estate Suburban Residential designation. This alternative would involve Council directing staff to prepare a policy review of the entire Estate Suburban Residential land use designation, affecting approximately 207 hectares (512 acres) of Estate Suburban Residential designated land. A similar review was recently completed for the Albion Area Plan. It is noted at this time that the Planning Department does not have the capacity to undertake this review until the Albion Flats and Hammond Area Plans are completed. If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to conduct this study, noting the subject application will be deferred until the policy review is completed. CONCLUSION: This report has reviewed the subject application in light of applicable OCP policies that speak to Urban Area Boundary adjustments and the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation. Previous Council decisions about extending the Urban Area Boundary, and the 2004 Council decision to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban development as part of the review of the OCP have also been summarized. In summary, the proposed 41 lots represent a significant density increase on lands that are designated Estate Suburban Residential. Therefore, it is recommended that the rezoning application as proposed by the applicant be denied, as the proposal does not comply with the following OCP Policies: Policy 3-14, which does not permit urban densities in the Estate Suburban Residential designation; Policy 2-6, which stipulates the circumstances of when an Urban Area Boundary expansion can be considered; Policy 3-22, which does not allow non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary; Policy 3-24, which allocates Thornhill as an Urban Reserve for future urban growth

27 Official Community Plan policies do not support amendments to include the subject property within the District s Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential. Therefore, an OCP amendment to such is not supportable under the OCP policies, and it is recommended that this application be denied on this basis. Original signed by Diana Hall for Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT Senior Planning Technician Original signed by Christine Carter Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Original signed by Frank Quinn Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A Subject Map Appendix B Proposed Development Sketch Appendix C Environmental Context Map - setbacks - 9 -

28 APPENDIX A SUBJECT PROPERTY ALOUETTE RD Scale: 1:2,500 City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley ^ FRASER R. District of Mission ALOUETTE ROAD CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Aug 29, 2014 FILE: RZ BY: PC

29 APPENDIX B

30 APPENDIX C

31 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 15, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit McEachern Street (east side lots only) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application VP has been received requesting an increase to the maximum building height from 9.75 metres to 11.0 metres for eight uphill lots on the east side of McEachern Street. This requested variance is to the same height as Variance Permit DVP for Lots 28 to 53, 73 to 95 and 114 to 126 of the same development, which Council approved on October 8, It is recommended this Development Variance Permit DVP be approved. Council considered rezoning application RZ and granted final reading on October 10, Council considered and approved two earlier variance permit applications for this development DVP was approved on June 25, 2013 to allow an increase to the height of portions of the retaining walls and to reduce the road servicing requirements within the 104 Avenue and 248 Street right-of-ways where the pedestrian walkways will be constructed DVP was approved on October 8, 2013 to allow an increase to the maximum building height on Lots 28 to 53, 73 to 95 and 114 to 126 to 11.0 metres; to allow the driveway for Lot 1 to be located less than 7.5 metres from the intersection; and to allow the existing overhead wiring on Jackson Road to remain. Council considered and approved the Intensive Residential Development Permit DP for 126 R-3 lots on October 8, RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP respecting the properties located at to McEachern Street (east side lots only). DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Zoning: Existing: Morningstar Homes Ltd. Morningstar Homes Ltd Lots 106 to 113, Section 10, Township 12, NWD Plan EPP32314 Medium Density Residential R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) 1103

32 Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Designation Residential Medium Density South: Use: Single Family Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Designation Residential Medium Density East: Use: Single Family Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Designation Residential Medium Density West: Use: Single Family Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Designation Residential Medium Density Use of Property: Under construction for single family residential Access: McEachern Street Servicing: Urban Standard Lot Size: 352m² to 521m² b) Requested Variance: 1. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No , Section 601C(F)(1): to vary the maximum building height of the R-3 zoned Lots from 9.75 metres to 11.0 metres. c) Project Description: These eight (8) lots are part the large 128 lot Robertson Heights subdivision that was approved earlier this year on the site of the former Allard gravel pit. These lots are in the upper east portion of the development on the east side of McEachern Street. Intensive Residential Development Permit DP has been approved which ensures there is a variety of building designs and colour schemes within the comprehensive design plan for the site. d) Planning Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variance to increase the maximum building height to 11.0 metres is consistent with building heights allowed by variance for recent developments in the District. The applicant designed the buildings to fit the contours of the site and to meet the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment for height in anticipation that the amendment would be adopted prior to approval of this development. The buildings are an up-hill design with three storeys facing the street and 2 storeys in the rear. A portion of the upper gable on the front elevation and a small portion of the peak of the roof will - 2 -

33 exceed the maximum height permitted in the R-3 zone. The amount of variance required for each of these lots will vary due to the slope of the site, but none of the buildings will exceed 11.0 metres. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed variance to increase the maximum building height on the uphill lots to 11.0 metres is supported because the height variance is consistent with common building practices and with building heights permitted by variances for new development. The same building height variance to 11.0 metres was approved by Council on October 8, 2013 with application DVP for Lots 28 to 53, 73 to 95 and 114 to 126 of this same Robertson Heights development. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit DVP. Original signed by Ann Edwards Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT Senior Planning Technician Original signed by Christine Carter Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Original signed by Frank Quinn Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A Subject Map Appendix B Building Elevation plans - 3 -

34 A AVE City of Pitt Meadows BCP EPP Scale: 1:1, District of Langley ROBERTSO McEAC HERN ST BCP ^ FRAS ER R EPP EPP ST. District of Mis sion Subject Properties 44 APPENDIX A BCP McEachern S t CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE P LA N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T DATE: Sep 3, VP BY: J V

35 APPENDIX B

36

37 City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 15, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Award of Contract ITT-EN14-54: Larch Avenue Road Extension EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Larch Avenue Road Extension Project is in the City s approved Capital Program as part of the Silver Valley Pedestrian and Road Improvement project. The project objective is to complete a critical transportation linkage between the Forest Hamlet, River Village and the adjacent neighbourhoods as identified in the Silver Valley Area Plan. The project scope includes road construction, boulevard and pedestrian upgrades, drainage works and a section of watermain replacement. This contract was tendered on August 13, 2014 and closed on September 3, The lowest compliant tender price was submitted by Frazer Excavation Ltd. for $243, excluding taxes. This does not include watermain work to be undertaken by City crews including two water service connections and the tie-in to the City watermain. This work is estimated at $15,000 for a total project value of $258, The construction of the project is anticipated to commence in October 2014 and is anticipated to be completed in approximately 6 weeks. Council approval to award the contract is required for the work to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Contract ITT-EN14-54, Larch Avenue Road Extension, be awarded to Frazer Excavation Ltd. in the amount of $243, excluding taxes; and THAT a contingency of 5% or $12, be approved to address potential variations in field conditions; and THAT the Financial Plan be amended to advance $48, from LTC 7840; and further THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1104

38 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Larch Avenue from 235 Street to approximately 85m east is currently an asphalt road constructed to a minimal service level to provide local access to several driveways. In 2012 a development application constructed the portion of Larch Avenue west of 236 Street to the full urban standards as far as the easterly limit of this project. At the time, the City considered completing the road connection through to 235 Street under the Development Cost Charge program however additional road dedication was required which then necessitated property acquisition. Since then, the City has acquired the land and is now in a position to complete this critical transportation corridor. The proposed capital project to complete the Larch Avenue corridor includes construction of two travel lanes, boulevard upgrades and parking along the right of way the City acquired, temporary boulevard treatments fronting future development lands and the replacement of a section of watermain. The project will provide a continuous pedestrian and vehicle corridor between 235 Street and 236 Street. Tender Evaluation The contract for the Larch Avenue Road Extension was tendered on August 13, 2014 and closed on September 3, Eleven tenders were received ranging from $243, to $339, excluding taxes. The following eight compliant tenders were received are listed in order from lowest to highest price: Tender Price (excluding taxes) Frazer Excavation Ltd $243, Sandpiper Contracting LLP $272, Mainland Civil Works Inc. $272, Lafarge Canada Ltd / Columbia Bitulithic $274, Key-West Asphalt Ltd. $279, King Hoe Excavating Ltd. $287, Winvan Paving Ltd. $301, Jack Cewe Ltd. $339, Staff has reviewed the tenders and the lowest compliant bid was $243, from Frazer Excavation Ltd. Frazer Excavation Ltd. has completed a number of projects for the City and is suitably qualified for the works.

39 b) Desired Outcome: The construction of Larch Avenue will provide a critical transportation link between 235 Street to 236 Street which provide alternate road access to the Rock Ridge area. This connection will also provide improved facilities for pedestrians. c) Strategic Alignment: The Larch Avenue Road Extension Project supports the following key strategies identified in the City s Strategic Plan: Maintain and enhance a multi-modal transportation system within Maple Ridge to provide citizens with safe, efficient alternatives for the movement of individuals and goods Promote alternative modes (pedestrian, bike, public transit) of travel to reduce reliance on the automobile d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Residents of the Silver Valley area have expressed their desire for alternate access and egress points to their community. The extension of Larch Avenue will provide a much needed and called for alternate route for vehicles into the eastern area of Silver Valley. The estimated construction duration is approximately 6 weeks, starting in October It is anticipated that the the work zone will be restricted to local traffic only which impacts three residents only but the road should remain open at all times. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Operations and Planning Departments have provided input to the design. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The tender price for the project is $243,735.33, in addition $15,000 of watermain work is to be completed by City crews. The City watermain works brings the total project construction value to $258, An additional 5% contingency to address extra design and construction costs associated with potential variations in field conditions brings the total project cost to $271, The project funding is provided through Capital Projects LTC 8468 and LTC LTC 8468 is a DCC project for the improvement of pedestrian and road network in Silver Valley and is being used to fund $223,400 of the project. LTC 7840 is a DCC project identified to provide collector standard improvements on Larch; approximately 45m of collector improvements are included in this project and requires that $48, be advanced in the Capital Plan. Funding for LTC 7840 is a combination of DCC and Water Utility Fund. Based upon the above funding there is sufficient funds to award the contract and cover contingencies.

40 CONCLUSIONS: The tender price of $243, excluding taxes by Frazer Excavation Ltd. for the Larch Avenue Road Extension is the lowest tendered price. It is recommended that Council approve the award of the contract to Frazer Excavation Ltd. It is further recommended that Council approve a total budget of $271, to allow for City water works and a project contingency. Original signed by Rachel Ollenberger Prepared by: Rachel Ollenberger. AScT Engineering Technologist Original signed by David Pollock Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer Original signed by Trevor Thompson Financial Trevor Thompson, CGA Review by: Manager of Financial Planning Original signed by Frank Quinn Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer

41 PROJECT LOCATION